User talk:Amitchell125/Archive1

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Talk:Battle of North Walsham has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message - the disambiguations have now been corrected. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The article has never been up for deletion: only the talk page has been. It was up for deletion because the bot that created it realised that you'd fixed all of the disambiguations; it's programmed to ask for a talk page to be deleted if all of the disambiguations have been fixed and if it's the only one to have edited the page. There's no good reason to have a talk page that has only ever been an edit to note disambiguations and an edit to remove the note, since it doesn't fulfill any of the normal uses for a talk page; see the explanation of speedy criterion G6. Nice work on the article; new users definitely don't write this well very often, so it's quite nice to see someone like you doing such a good job starting out. By all means, keep it up! If you have any questions, ask me by leaving a note at my talk page, and I'll try to help. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

1380s

Hi ! If you're looking for some articles to work on around your specialism, I would suggest Henry le Despencer. There are a decent number of sources around concerning him, and he was a pretty influential figure at the time. In any case, write back to me with your thoughts. I'd be willing to help. Claritas (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I nominated the article for good article review to get some more pointers for improvement. You can find the discussion here. Thanks. Claritas (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Feedback - I've read it through and made a few minor edits so that it complies with WP:MOS. The only problem with it at the moment is the section on "Henry's character and legacy", which needs either to be significantly edited or removed. You need to source it more, and write it in a more encyclopaedic style - why is "Richard Allington-Smith" an authority on this subject ? It seems to be a bit POV - you're pushing both sides of the argument using emotive words. I'd either reshape it or delete - it's certainly not necessary to have it as a section. Otherwise, good work ! Claritas (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:English_conquests_in_france_1382.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:English_conquests_in_france_1382.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the source to the image's page, all done now. feydey (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WPASK Assessment Drive

Hey all, our assessment process is raring for moving out, and just needs a little bit of help from you. First and foremost, our Quality and Importance scales need to be completed per consensus, please check them out at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anglo-Saxon_Kingdoms/Assessment and comment. Next, we have, as of my most recent assessments, 1122 articles that have not been assessed. All I ask is that each and every one of us assess ~10 articles each day you get on Wikipedia to speed up the process and let us really know what we have in our scope. Remember, we have Category, Template, Redirect and Disambiguation classes along with our more traditional stub through FA ratings, please use all of them and look for pages which fall within our scope. Thanks for all the help, Sadads (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henry le Despenser

The article Henry le Despenser you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Henry le Despenser for things which need to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henry le Despenser

The article Henry le Despenser you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Henry le Despenser for eventual comments about the article. Well done!.

Thanks for changing the "ibids" to full cites. The main problem with them on wikipedia is that anyone can change an article for better or worse, by adding, deleating or changing text; and so over time an "ibid" can become detatched from its original "parent" (and gains a new step-parent). Pyrotec (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations ! Your work is really appreciated. Claritas § 15:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Norfolk History

Hi

I can see that your are pretty enthusiastic about getting more quality into articles. Can I please ask you though to ensure that statements you make are actually correct lol

Please do not think I am having a go at all; I am merely concerned about getting things right.

You can see that I have re-edited the start of the History of Norfolk article. You made a few statements of which two were significantly inncorrect. I suspect that you are maybe only using one source for your information - possible a book ?

You can see that there have been three major finds of prehistoric materials in Norfolk including the oldest hand axe and finds dating back 600,000 years. You also said not much had been found during the bronze age. I have corrected those mistakes. There was a plan to try and start an East Anglian wikiproject but that was a non starter as there were only around 6 editors who were interested.

If you want to carry on on your own that is fine, I will check in on your progress every couple of days or so, but if you wish for a co-operative effort can I suggest that you do the major editing in either a subpage of the Norfolk History page or in your sandbox where we can edit and once it is ready we can put it in the article space

yours Chaosdruid (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad day for me all round lol - Schumi from 3rd to 16th and England 4-1

Ah well - at least there's still wiki to cheer me up lmao

I'm also trying to work oout what categories should be added as there are none for Norfolk or East Anglia in Archaeology of ...

Good to know there are others out there who want to improve articles - I notice you already had some success nominating for GA FA and DYK - good job

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks great - maybe the roads themselves - don't forget that although the otheres already have an "Main" article there is not one on ROman Norfolk so make it as big as you like and if it gets big emough we can split it off :¬)

Try Peddars Way(local route), Pye Road(a lot of the A140 runs on it) and Icknield Way/Watling Street(more long distance showing connections to other parts of Roman Britain)

For all intents and purposes Venta Icenorum is in Caistor St Edmund [1] - the buildings with green dotted line where it says "Stoke Road" is St Edmunds Church, Caistor St Edmund (what an address lol). The Dunston written there is a hall, not really a hamlet or village and the road to the left of the word Dunston is the A140, or Pye Road

[2] has lots of stuff including a [www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk/kml/nhe1.kml kml/kmz] file for google earth

I will look in more depth in a little while (hour or so) but it might be worth just creating the "Roman Norfolk" page and putting you work straight on it and then use that as the main for the History of Norfolk page

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

created Roman Norfolk and put your work on :¬)

Medieval Norfolk

HI - good work on the articles btw !

I cannot find an article that even resembles "Medieval Norfolk" : no Norfolk in the Middle ages, Norfolk in Medieval times anything like that

I appreciate that this is one of your speciality/favourite timeperiods so am thinking that once we get the Hirtory of Norfolk up to scratch that could maybe be your pet article ?

We can do it together if you like but I would mainly be inserting from other pages and summarising them - the work and knowledge would be yours - You would be "lead" so to speak lol

Any thoughts ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A nice idea but History of Norfolk first! Amitchell125 (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that "History of Norfolk" has to be a summary of the "main" articles. It will look a bit weird if there are huge sections for one time period and not others.

Thats why I moved your work straight onto the "Roman Norfolk" page as I realised that it would quickly get bigger than a summary

If you get more than about 200 words and you've only done 1/3 of the time perid then a seperate page is prob going to be needed.

Ideally they should be developed side by side and every paragraph added to the "main" is a sentence or less in the "History of"

I noticed you said Norwich ... 1100s - "Norwich Castle, in Norwich, England, was built in 1067.." and there was evidence of a big settlement on the river on King Street.

970 - First known written reference to Norwich (in Liber Eliensis).

1004- Norwich first mentioned in the Saxon Chronicles as King Sweyn burns Norwich and captures the area.

For now we'll go with your wishes to keep it simple :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Chaosdruid. Yes, the sections in History of Norfolk should be a summmary of other articles and not be too long. I think everything below 'Roman Norfolk' will eventually need to be redone to improve the quality of the H of N article, reserving the main information for other articles, as you suggest. I'll continue with working on the sections in this way, I think. Hopefully after a while the article will be finished enough to stop and have a good go at producing a detailed 'Mediaeval Norfolk'. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi again - really good work on the articles and it's good to see you going over it and making improvenments - so many editors just slap it in there have a look and then thats it lol

Anyway - I see you are starting on a new article and wondered if you know how to set up your sandbox ?

If you don't know what that's all about take a look at my userpage and click some of the links in the middle of the page. They are mostly to subpages under the directory location /User:Chaosdruid such as User:Chaosdruid/sandbox and User:Chaosdruid/documentsofinterest.

I think it may be easier for you as you can do things like copy entire articles into your sandbox pages and work on them in there - for example I asked for a deleted article to be "useryfied" and once it was undeleted I took all the versions of it and put them together in User:Chaosdruid/sandbox2 so I can work on it later. It also has the advantage of being lke a true article rather than on your userpage which I think may cause things like cats to not work properly.

If you like just click edit on my page and look how it's been constructed and if you want to use a sandbox but are still unsure let me know and I'll help you create it. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of History of Norfolk cat

Hi

I notice you have been removing some of the History of Norfolk cats. While I can see why you did at Seahenge, I cannot understand why you removed it from Venta Icenorum ?

thx Chaosdruid (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok - I am really getting confused now lol

I asked for someone on the main projects page to explain how to put the cat into the "History of Norfolk" tree

I'm guessing someone has done it without letting me know - can't learn if ppl just do it without telling you or explaining it lol

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you manage to download any of those ebooks from Gutenberg ? Chaosdruid (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits and pics

Hi

I did a little more on the prehistory and moved some pics about. They look a little messy at the moment but will fall into place once I add more text into the Bronze Age and Iron Age sections.

It's starting to look really goo - but a lot to do yet lol

Did you get any of those e-books from Gutenberg ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, they'll get used, Gutenburg is a useful source.

Edits in the Lead

Hi

I just saw your edits to the lead - It is important that you try to remember not to make it vague.

I think you may have been shopping for words to cut as you realisid the addition you were going to make would make it overly long. I have no problem with that at all. You are correct that both the section needed representing in the lead and words might have been cut to make the space.

Problem is removing things can have an adverse effect - For example you removed the wording "from France". Now it reads "Romans began to consider invasion around 100 AD" - were they going to be invaded? or was it they were going to invade someone else?. I am doing a few other things and cannot spend the time right now to look at those edits in detail but will check on your progress later today when I start to add more into the Prehistory and 17th/18th/19th sections.

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Points taken - you are quite right - but the lead section will need to be trimmed even more to comply with Manual of Style guide lines (no more than 4 paragraphs, for articles past 30000 characters. The article is half written and it already has 4000+ words). Back in a week! (Civil War in Norfolk next on my list) --Amitchell125 (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy your holiday :¬) (if that's what it is)

I will try and get more put into the body for the missing parts especially. If I cannot find much else to put into those prehistory sections I may just combine them into the one section and separate by paragraph with dates to demark.

It looks really good so far - you hae done a pretty fine job on it - the lead can wait till we have almost got it finished I think otherwise we'll just keep chopping and changing it all the time.

Anyway - enjoy yourself and see you in a week or so Chaosdruid (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to have let you down - I have had to take an extended wikibreak due to ill health and thne a week long visit from my family which took me across England for 6 days...I am back now and will get on with the work I should have done tomorrow and sunday.

Hope you enjoyed your own little break :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for absence

Wow - you have been busy !! Good work !!

I had a little flu and then the pc got a virus of its own followed by two failed modems (Vrigin ones) but everything looks fixed now so should be back on track by midweek

Sorry to have not been around but hopefully I can get on with the prehistory section now - also did you see the finds at Happisburgh ? New evidence of 900,000 year old tools which I need to catch up on and possibly rewrite the opener...Chaosdruid (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Time for some recognition I think ...

Hi

Sorry for my absence over the last few months but as winter is approaching I (as usual) have been sticken by arthritis, flu and travelling. From the end of August my time is usually limited as I have a lot of family events and the bad weather takes its toll on my health.

I realise that I could have done more work on the History of Norfolk and now that the family responsibilities are reduced I will probably start to contribute more to WikiWorld than the past three months.

It istime I think that your hard work is recognised - you have greatly improved the article, taken constructive crtiticism well, responded to requests and maintianed a completely civil and functioning attitude to editing and so I think this may be in order :_

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For your hard work, diligence, attention to detail, attitude to co-operative editing and your superb contribution :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hope to collaborate again as I really have enjoyed watching the article grow

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Alby Church.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Alby Church.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Anna of East Anglia/GA1

Nice work. It isn't far from GA, just one or two things need clarifying. I've added one or two questions on the link above, best you reply there rather than on my talk page (just keeps things in one place). Parrot of Doom 21:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of North Walsham/GA1

Hello, it's me again :) Same drill as before. Interesting looking article, I've read bits and pieces about the Peasant's Revolt so I'm sure I'll enjoy reading the rest of this (I've only read the first two sections thus far). I'll continue reviewing tomorrow but you're free to reply on the link above to whatever I've raised so far. Parrot of Doom 22:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I'll assume you're presently busy with personal affairs, so I'll put the review on hold until this weekend. If by then you've been unable to attend to it, I'm afraid I'll have to fail it. Parrot of Doom 20:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delay, I'd noticed you editing the article but was waiting for you to update the review page. No matter. I've stricken most of the points I raised but one or two remain. Could you attend to those please? Parrot of Doom 20:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)